Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
The first thing that we will take up in Civil Procedure are basic
concepts. We are going to discuss the legal concept of courts. As
you will know, whenever we talk of procedural law, we have no
choice but to involve courts in our discussion.
Lets try to have a mental picture of courts. If I (Dean Iigo)
say courts, please tell me the scene that comes into your mind.
What do you see? There is a table, a gavel, there is someone
sitting there. Then below, there are lawyers sitting down. That is
how everybody pictures a court. But actually, what was pictured
out was a courtroom and not a court.
Similar example: How can you picture a corporation? A
corporation, as you know in Persons, is a juridical entity. It is a
creature of the law. It is a person under the law but it has no
physical existence. But what you see in a corporation is a building
and people who are running the office business. Well, that is the
office of the corporation.
A corporation cannot run without people running it. But a
corporation can own properties, kaya you see the building, the
office, the equipments there. The president or the vice-president
are the officers of the corporation. But the officers are not the
corporation, they run the affairs of the corporation. Ganoon din
ang court. A court has no physical existence, only a legal one.
the cake into parts this part is for you, this part is mine. So,
kanya-kanya tayo ng trabaho. You cannot put the burden only in
one court.
For example, you want to sue your debtor for not paying a
loan. You mean to tell me that you will go to the SC? All cases in
the Philippines will have to filed there? NO. You cannot do it. You
have to start from certain courts in you city or municipality.
Ngayon, pag-sinabi mo kung saan ako mag-file, sa Regional
Trial Court (RTC) ba? O sa Municipal Trial Court (MTC)? Of
course, depende yan on how much you are claiming. If you are
claiming so much, dito ka. If you claim is lower, dito ka naman.
Why is that? Because each has its own work. Each one has its
own portion what is yours is yours, what is mine is mine.
Thus, each court has its own jurisdiction and may only try
cases within its jurisdiction. No court has all the power of the
judiciary but only a portion of it. So there is a division of labor.
Just as corporations cannot act without its officers, a court
cannot function without a judge. But do not say that the court and
the judge mean the same thing. The judge is the person or officer
who presides over a court.
The reason that the law creates different courts is to divide the
cases or judicial power among them so that one court may not be
burdened with so many cases. So, judicial power is not exercised
only by one court, but by several courts. It is like a cake. You slice
Q: What is a court?
A: A court is an entity or body vested with a portion of the
judicial power. (Lontok vs. Battung, 63 Phil. 1054)
is null and void? NO, the judgment is valid kaya lang mali. So, you
do not say the court committed an error in the exercise of
jurisdiction, and that is called an ERROR OF JUDGMENT. And
that was also asked in the bar.
ERROR OF JURISDICTION vs. ERROR OF JUDGMENT
BAR QUESTION: Distinguish ERRORS OF JURISDICTION
from ERRORS OF JUDGMENT.
A: The following are the distinctions:
1.) When a court acquires jurisdiction over the subject
matter, the decision or order on all other questions
arising in the case is but an exercise of
jurisdiction; Errors which the court may commit in
the exercise of such jurisdiction are merely
ERRORS OF JUDGMENT; whereas,
When a court takes cognizance of a case over the
subject matter of which it has no jurisdiction, the
court commits an ERROR OF JURISDICTION.
2.) ERRORS OF JURISDICTION are reviewable by
certiorari; whereas,
ERRORS OF JUDGMENT are reviewable by appeal.
Meaning, when a court has no jurisdiction but insists in
handling the case, that is a mistake by the trial court. It is called an
error of jurisdiction.
Now, suppose a court has jurisdiction over the case but the
decision is wrong it applied the wrong provision of the law, or
interpretation of evidence. This is not an error of jurisdiction
because the court has authority. But in the exercise of its
jurisdiction, it committed several errors. This is now what you call
an error of judgment.
Q: What is the use of distinguishing error of jurisdiction from
error of judgment?
A: The difference is in the remedy taken. Actually, it is still an
error. If it is an error, it can be corrected by a higher court. The
importance, however, as we will see later, is that there is a definite
procedure for correcting a mistake and other procedures which we
will know later where the court commits an error of judgment and
an error of jurisdiction.
In error of judgment, if the judgment is wrong, it is a valid
judgment. Your remedy is to APPEAL the wrong judgment to a
higher court. But when a court commits an error of jurisdiction,
where it insists on handling a case when it has no authority, I can
question its actuation not necessarily by appeal, but by resorting
to extraordinary remedies, which refer to the remedy of
CERTIORARI or PROHIBITION. (Araneta vs. Commonwealth Ins.
Co., L-11584, April 28, 1958; Nocon vs. Geronimo, 101 Phil. 735)
The principle came out in the bar. This error should have been
raised on ordinary appeal, not by certiorari because certiorari is
only confined to correcting errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of
discretion. The governing rule is that the remedy of certiorari is not
available when the remedy of appeal is available. And when the
remedy of appeal is lost, you cannot revive it by resorting to
certiorari because certiorari is not a substitute for the lost remedy
of appeal.
So, the remedies given by the law are different. These are
basic terms which you should remember.
Q: In whom is jurisdiction is vested?
A: Jurisdiction is vested with the court, not in the judge. A court
may have several branches, and each is not a court distinct and
separate from the others. So, when a case is filed before a
branch, the trial may be had or proceedings may continue before
another branch or judge. (Tagumpay vs. Moscoso, L-14723, May
29, 1959)
EXAMPLE: The RTC of Davao is composed of several
branches eleven to twelve judges. But technically, there is only
one court the RTC of Davao. We do not consider branches as
separate courts.
Q: Now, if the case is filed and is assigned to Branch 8, can
that case later be transferred and continued in Branch 9?
A: Ah YES, because you never leave the same court. You are
still in the same court. This is because jurisdiction is not with the
judge. It is with the court itself.
TYPES OF JURISDICTION:
Types of jurisdiction:
1.) General Jurisdiction and Special or Limited
Jurisdiction;
2.) Original Jurisdiction and Appellate Jurisdiction; and
3.) Exclusive Jurisdiction and Concurrent or Coordinate
Jurisdiction;
1. GENERAL JURISDICTION and SPECIAL OR LIMITED
JURISDICTION
a.) GENERAL JURISDICTION is the authority of the court
to hear and determine all actions and suits, whether
civil, criminal, administrative, real, personal or mixed.
It is very broad to hear and try practically all types of
cases. (14 Am. Jur. 249; Hahn vs. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391)
b.) SPECIAL or LIMITED JURISDICTION is the authority
of the court to hear and determine particular cases
only. Its power is limited. (14 Am. Jur. 249; Hahn vs.
Kelly, 34 Cal. 391)
So, the court is authorized to hear and try
certain specified cases. Limitado pa ang power
niya. And when you go over the Judiciary Act,
studying the jurisdiction of the different courts, in
civil cases you will see that the jurisdiction of
some courts like the RTC, masyadong far
ranging. It covers many things whereas the
jurisdiction of the MTC, makipot. Very narrow
bah because it is a court of limited or special
jurisdiction.
2.
ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION
JURISDICTION
and
APPELLATE
without being arrested. You must arrest him and arraign him first.
The same thing in civil cases. It must be that the court must
acquire jurisdiction over this person.
Normally, when we say jurisdiction over the parties, we are
referring to the PLAINTIFF the one suing, and the DEFENDAN'T
the one being sued. For the decision to be valid, the court must
obtain jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff and the
defendant. Otherwise, the decision will not bind the parties over
whom the court has not acquired jurisdiction.
That is why jurisdiction over the parties is the power of the
court to render a personal judgment which will bind the parties to
the case. What is the use of rendering a decision if the parties are
not bound? It must have effect.
Q: How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the plaintiff?
A: Jurisdiction over the person of the plaintiff is acquired from
the moment he files his complaint. Upon filing his complaint in
court, he is automatically within the jurisdiction of the court. (MRR
Co. vs Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523)
Q: How does the court acquire jurisdiction over the defendant?
A: Jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is acquired:
1.) upon service on him of coercive process in the
manner provided by law; or
2.) by his voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the
court. (MRR Co. vs Atty. Gen. 20 Phil. 523)
First Instance: UPON SERVICE ON HIM OF COERCIVE
PROCESS
IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW
The first instance when a court acquires jurisdiction over the
person of the defendant is through a service upon him of the
appropriate court process which in civil law is called service of
summons. This is the counterpart of warrant of arrest in criminal
procedure.
So if the defendant was never served with summons, any
judgment rendered by the court will not bind him. Even if he is the
Q: Suppose after the trial, the court said that the obligation
has been extinguished by condonation. Now where did the court
get that? Your defense is payment, and the decision now it was
extinguished by condonation. Is the decision correct?
A: The decision is WRONG because the parties did not raise
condonation as the issue. The case was decided on an issue that
was not even raised by the parties. So the court never acquired
jurisdiction over the issue. In other words, the court should only
rule on what the parties raised in their pleadings. That is what we
call jurisdiction over the issue. The court should only rule on what
the parties claim.
So, the court is supposed to rule on the issue raised and not
those not raised by the parties.
Take note that jurisdiction over the issues in civil cases is
acquired after defendant has filed an answer. In criminal cases,
jurisdiction over the issues is acquired upon filing of a complaint.
For a decision to be effective, the court must acquire the
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the person, the res in case the
defendant is not around, and the last is jurisdiction over the issue.
Q: Distinguish jurisdiction over the subject matter and
jurisdiction over the issues.
A: The following are the distinctions:
1.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is the power to
hear and try a particular case, while
Jurisdiction over the issues is the power of the court to
resolve legal questions involved in the case;
2.) Jurisdiction over the subject matter is acquired upon
filing of the complaint, while
SUPREME COURT
COURT OF APPEALS
REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS
MetTC
MTCC
MTC
MCTC
Note:
MetTC- In Manila
MTCC- cities outside Manila e.g. Cebu, Davao
MTC- municipalities such as Digos, Panabo
MCTC- circuitized areas because it is impractical and
expensive to maintain one MTC in every municipalities.
b.) Special courts
There are also Special Courts which are also considered part
of the judiciary. These are:
If theres an electoral protest for the President and VicePresident, the matter is not to be decided by the COMELEC but by
the SC. This is what is called as the SC acting as the Presidential
Electoral Tribunal. The only case so far was that filed by
Defensor-Santiago but which was dismissed, the SC ruled that
when she ran for the Senate, she has already technically
abandoned her interest for the Presidency.
Article VII, Section 18 (3), 1987 Constitution Commander-inChief Clause
The Supreme Court may review, in an
appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen,
the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension
of the privilege of the writ or extension
thereof, and must promulgate its decision
thereon within thirty days from its filing.
So, the SC, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen
review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of
martial law. Meaning, the SC can inquire into the basis on why
martial law is declared.
Which therefore abandons the Political Question doctrine laid
down in many earlier cases that it is the prerogative of the
President to determination, at his discretion, the sufficiency of the
factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension
of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof.
So this particular provision of the Constitution came about in
1987 to check the supposed excesses during the time of Marcos,
though it came too late. It may well take another 100 years to
produce another Marcos.
Article VIII, Section 2, 1987 Constitution:
The Congress shall have the power to
define,
prescribe,
and
apportion
the
jurisdiction of the various courts but may not
3.2.) From the RTC direct to the SC. Now, this is not
ordinary appeal because this only applies to criminal
cases. In civil cases, if you want to go directly to the
SC, you can do so by appeal by certiorari, provided
that the following conditions are met:
a.) If no question of fact is involved and the case
involves the constitutionality or legality validity of
any tax, impost, etc., or jurisdiction of the lower
courts is in issue ( Article VIII, section 5 par.(2)
b.) only an error or question of law involved (supra);
c.) a judgment rendered upon an award under the
Arbitration Law (RA 876)
d.) appeal on pure questions of law in cases of
appeal to the RTC from inferior courts. So, from
the MTC to the RTC ordinary appeal. From the
RTC, on pure questions of law, to the SC appeal
by certiorari.
3.3.) Appeal from other courts or administrative agencies
liked appeal from the Sandiganbayan to the SC, from
the Central Board of Assessment Appeal or from the
Ombudsman.
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
BRIEF HISTORY OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
The jurisdiction of the CA is now governed by BP 129 or the
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. BP 129 was passed in 1983
by the former Batasang Pambansa which practically abolished all
the regular courts at that time, and also with the special courts
except the SC which cannot be abolished by Congress. What was
also spared was the Court of Tax Appeals which was likewise not
affected.
In lieu of these, other courts were created. The
constitutionality of BP 129 was challenged as violative of the
security of tenure of the judges. But its constitutionality was
sustained in the case of DELA LLANA vs. ALBA, 112 SCRA 294.
jurisdiction of the two courts at the same time. Now, suppose I will
do that, what do you think will happen to me?
A: The consequence is found in Section 17 of the Interim
Rules. Thats why, as I said, the Interim Rules are still intact.
And also except those falling under the Labor Code of the
Philippines. A labor case is not supposed to be filed in court but
with a quasi-judicial agency known as the NLRC and you start in
the local level from the Labor Arbiter, then the decisions of the
Labor Arbiter are appealable to the NLRC and then from there,
where will you go?
Q: Is the decision of the NLRC appealable before the CA?
Because it is also a quasi-judicial agency and under the law, all
decisions of quasi-judicial agencies are supposed to be appealed
to the CA.
A: NO. The decision of the NLRC is an exception except
those under the appellate jurisdiction of the SC under the
Constitution and in accordance with the Labor Code (PD 422). So
conclusion: NLRC decisions cannot be appealed to the CA and
the only way to elevate it is to the SC by what we call certiorari,
not appeal. Also, decisions of the Secretary of Labor, under the
Labor Code are not reviewable by the CA, but they are reviewable
directly by the SC.
And then there is the phrase, "the provisions of this Act, and of
subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of
the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
So, in other words, the new Judiciary Law still makes some
reference to the old law. This shows that the entire 1948 Judiciary
Law has not been totally repealed. Some provisions are still intact
because of the reference.
Now what is this subparagraph 1 of the third paragraph? It
only applies to criminal cases. EXAMPLE: A person is sentenced
to reclusion perpetua, his co-accused is sentenced to reclusion
temporal or prison mayor, and all of them will appeal, all of them
should be sa SC na. Otherwise, you will be splitting the appeal
into two parts.
Subparagraph 4 of the fourth paragraph of Section 17. When
by appeal from the RTC is on pure legal question, SC yan.
Q: Suppose nasagulan ng questions of fact, I will appeal
questions of fact and questions of law.
A: Under the 1948 Judiciary Law, you cannot appeal directly to
the SC. You must appeal to the CA.
branches which sit thereat for the province of Davao del Sur. And
the City of Davao which sits at Davao City, Digos, Malita and
Bansalan. Then 10 branches whish sit thereat for the province of
South Cotabato and the City of General Santos which sit at
General Santos City, Koronadal [the City of Eumir, Francis and
Mortz], Surallah, and Polomolok. And 5 branches which sit thereat
for the province of Surigao del Sur which sit at Tandag, Ginanga,
Bislig and Kantilan. So that is how they are distributed within the
11th the juridical region.
Q: So, since there are 41 of them scattered throughout the
11th judicial region, from Surigao to South Cotabato, for example, I
would like to file a case against my neighbor based in Davao. So ifile ko sa Polomolok, anyway thats the same court, eh. Or a
criminal in Davao City file-an sa Mati. Anyway, the same court na.
Are you allowed to do that?
A. The answer is NO! Every branch of the RTC has its own
area of responsibility. Except in Davao City, or in chartered cities,
the authority of every branch here is throughout Davao City. But sa
probinsya, hati-hati yan eh, and the provision there is Section 18
of BP 129.
BP 129, Section 18 . Authority to define
territory appurtenant to each branch The
Supreme Court shall define the territory over
which a branch of the Regional Trial Court
shall exercise its authority. The territory thus
defined shall be deemed to be the territorial
area of the branch concerned for purposes of
determining
the
venue
of
all
suits,
proceedings or actions, whether civil or
criminal, as well as determining the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts over
which the said branch may exercise appellate
jurisdiction. The power herein granted shall
be exercised with a view to making the courts
readily accessible to the people of the
different parts of the region and making the
attendants of litigants and witness as
inexpensive as possible.
To illustrate:
MTC
Now, statistically for the past 20 years, the rate of petitions for
review from the RTC which are given due course is only 15%17%. For every 100 petitions for review, 15 are given due course,
85 are thrown out. They did not pass the test under Section 22. It
is really a difficult process.
Summary of RTC jurisdiction:
1.) As to the EXCLUSIVE original jurisdiction Section
19 (BP 129);
2.) As to its original CONCURRENT jurisdiction Section
21 (BP 129);
JURISDICTION OF THE
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS
the
subsequent
And the third rule laid down in Sun Insurance: if the judgment
awards a claim not specified in the pleadings, the filing fee
therefor shall be a lien in the judgment. It shall be the
responsibility of the clerk of Court or his duly-authorized deputy to
enforce the lien, assess and collect the additional fee.
Q: When can this possibly happen?
A: That can happen for example if I ask for damages. A man
was hospitalized because of physical injuries. Nag file siya ng
kaso. Sabi ng court, may damages ito. So the court acknowledged
the claim of P300,000. But after the case is filed, di pa rin siya
nakabayad sa hospital. After filing, marami pang gastos! So in
other words he might ask from the court another P 50,000.
Q: Can the court award the P 50,000?
A: Yes, because the additional expenses came only after the
filing of the case. The additional expenses occurred only after filing
the case. So nagkulang ngayon ang docket fee. Bayaran mo,
dont dismiss the case!
The Sun Insurance is a leading case on docket fee. It was
followed with a third case in December 1989 which further clarified
the SUN INSURANCE ruling. This is the case of
TACAY vs. RTC OF TAGUM, DAVAO DEL
NORTE
180 SCRA 433 [1989]
NOTE: When this case was filed, wala pa yong
INSURANCE.
The
guiding
rule
was
still
MANCHESTER. But while this was pending lumabas
na yong SUN INSURANCE.
FACTS: The case was for recovery of land with
damages (accion publiciana). So it is not purely for
damages. So how will you assess the filling fees?
Based on the value of the land, binayaran ng plaintiff
ang docket fee. Defendant moved to dismiss based
on MANCHESTER because the plaintiff did not
specify in the complaint how much damages he was
claiming. Now the RTC of Tagum denies the motion to
TOTALITY RULE
Now, continuing with Section 33, it says there in paragraph [1]:
Provided further, That where there are
several claims or causes of actions between
the same or different parties, embodied in the
same complaint, the amount of the demand
shall be the totality of the claims in all the
causes of action, irrespective of whether the
amount of the demand shall be the totality of the claims the totality
rule applies in both situations.
We will now go to paragraph [2] of Section 33.
[2] Exclusive original jurisdiction over
cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer:
Provided, That when, in such cases, the
defendant raises the question of ownership in
his pleadings and the question of possession
cannot be resolved without deciding the issue
of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be
resolved only to determine the issue of
possession. x x x x
This is related to the Law on Property FORCIBLE ENTRY
(recovery of physical possession, e.g. squatting) and UNLAWFUL
DETAINER (e.g. you eject a lessee does not pay his rent.) MTC
lahat iyan. The two cases should not be confused with accion
publiciana which is also the recovery of possession but that is a
better right. Now, in unlawful detainer, the plaintiff also prays not
only to eject the defendant but also to claim for back rentals or the
reasonable amount of the use and occupation of the property in
case of forcible entry.
Q: Suppose the unpaid rentals already amount to almost half
a million pesos so, unlawful detainer plus back rentals of half a
million. Where should the case be filed?
A: The case should still be filed with the MTC. What
determines jurisdiction is the nature of the action, and not the
amount of recoverable rentals. Kahit na one (1) million pa yan,
MTC pa rin yan.
Q: In an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer, can the
party present evidence of ownership?
A: The general rule is NO because the MTC cannot adjudicate
ownership. That has to be threshed out in the proper civil action in
the RTC. But if evidence of ownership is presented in the forcible
entry or unlawful detainer case, it is only incidental and it is only
resolved to determine the issue of possession. But the declaration
of ownership is not final that is only prima facie. The question of
ownership must be litigated in a separate action in the RTC.
In which case, these MTCs can decide and their decisions are
appealable directly to the CA. Para bang acting RTC sila ba.
Thats what it is called delegated jurisdiction. Delegate means it
really has to be assigned to you.
Now do not confuse this P100,000 (Section 34) with the
P20,000 under Section 33. Section 34 deals with cadastral and
land registration cases. Section 33 involves civil cases (accion
publiciana, etc.)
C.) SPECIAL JURISDICTION OF MTC
Sec. 35.
Special jurisdiction in certain
cases. - In the absence of all the Regional Trial
Judges in a province or city, any Metropolitan
Trial Judge, Municipal Trial Judge, Municipal
Circuit Trial Judge may hear and decide
petitions for a writ of habeas corpus or
applications for bail in criminal cases in the
province or city where the absent Regional
Trial Judges sit.
This is what we call special jurisdiction. That only applies to
two (2) types of cases: (1) Habeas corpus and (2) hearing of
petitions for bail.
Remember that habeas corpus is not within the jurisdiction of
the MTC. It is with the RTC. Also, the hearing on petition for bail,
RTC yan because the offense may be a heinous one, but under
the law on criminal procedure you can file a petition for bail to
have your temporary freedom while the case is going on. Thats
supposed to be in the RTC.
But suppose there is no available RTC judge, all of them are
sick or all of them are attending a convention (this actually
happened in Davao in 1990) Section 35 provides that the MTC, in
the absence of RTC judges, can hear and decide on habeas
corpus case petitions and applications or petitions for bail in
criminal cases. So acting pa rin yan because they are urgent and
the liberty of a person is at stake.
That is allowed because of the urgency of the situation. There
is no need for a SC authorization. However, this is only allowed in
the absence of the RTC judges. But if the RTC judge comes back,
he has to take over the petition.
So with that we are through with the jurisdiction of our courts.
So we will now proceed to remedial law proper.
CIVIL PROCEDURE PROPER
Old Rules of Court. And that continued for another 33 years until
July 01,1997 where the SC enacted and which took effect on that
day (July 01, 1997) the New Rules on Civil Procedure.
SUMMARY:
1.) First Law August 07, 1901 Act 190 Code of Civil
Procedure (40 years)
2.) Second Law July 01, 1940 Old Rules of Court (24
years)
3.) Third Law January 01, 1964 Revised Rules of Court
(33 years)
4.) Fourth Law July 01, 1997 New Rules of Civil
Procedure.
SOURCES OF THE 1997 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Well of course the sources are almost the same as the prior
law. The old Rules of Court is also a source. Many provisions were
taken from the 1964 Rules, substantive law like the Civil Code and
jurisprudence. And of course SC circulars. Many circulars are now
incorporated under the new rule. So those are the main sources.
1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)
SOURCES:
Previous Rules of Court;
Jurisprudence;
New Civil Code;
SC Circulars
LIMITATIONS :
1. The Rules of Court shall provide a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition
of cases;
2. The Rules of Court shall be uniform for all courts of
the same grade; and
3. The Rules of Court shall not diminish, modify or
increase substantive rights.
Substantive rights are created by substantive law so the Rules
of Procedure should not increase, diminish or modify them. In
effect, the Rules of Court should not amend the substantive law. It
can only interpret substantive law but should not change it
completely. Those are the limitations. With that we are now ready
to tackle the 1997 rules on civil procedure.
3.
Lets go to the CA. Simple: If a case does not fall within the
jurisdiction of the SC, then necessarily it falls within the CAs
jurisdiction. That is, the penalty imposed is less than perpetua and
If the law says this case shall be tried with the RTC, sundin
mo yan and never mind the penalty because the law specifically
provides in what court you should file it. Even if the penalty is one
(1) month imprisonment, pag-sinabi ng law RTC, you follow it.
person? Does joint trial make your job easier or harder? Makes
conviction easier? Wala man bah! Pareho man lang yan!
So meaning, you cannot insist on a joint trial if that is no
longer feasible. But as far as the law is concerned, since you
committed the crime in conspiracy with these public officers, you
remain in the Sandiganbayan. So in that case (Bondoc), mag-isa
lang siya and his trial continued in the Sandiganbayan.
AZARCON vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
268 SCRA 747 (February 26, 1997)
FACTS: I think this case happened in Bislig.
Azarcon here leased a truck of somebody for logging
operations. The owner of the truck was a delinquent
taxpayer pala. So the Bureau of Internal Revenue
(BIR) issued this warrant of distraint. The BIR looked
for the truck which is quite an item which worthwhile:
This truck is hereby considered as under the
possession of the BIR. Now since you (Azarcon) are
the one leasing, okey lang, ituloy mo but you are now
the custodian. You are now holding it in behalf of the
BIR.
After the lease, he returned the truck to the lessor
(taxpayer). Obviously, nawala nga ang truck. So
hinabol na si Azarcon ng BIR: Bat mo sinauli? That
is under distraint already and that is malversation!
Under the RPC, the crime of malversation may be
committed by a public officer, by a private individual
who is entrusted with the custody of a property which
has been levied by the government (Article 222,
RPC)
So, f-in-ile-an sya ng kaso sa Sandiganbayan
malversation eh! He now questions the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan: I am not a public officer. If you
want to sue me, you sue me in the regular courts, not
here in the Sandiganbayan!
ISSUE: Does the Sandiganbayan have the
jurisdiction over a private individual who is charged
with malversation of public funds or property as a
principal after the said individual has been designated